|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking Guns
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It wouldn't surprise me if the NRA managed to sneak in legislation or regulation to prevent insurance companies from considering guns when assessing risk ...
Do insurance companies currently consider gun ownership? Because it would surprise me if they didn't given the strong correlation between gun ownership and increased chance of being shot (especially if providing cover for the entire household rather than just the individual). Insurance companies would usually be keen to increase premiums for higher risk categories, and reduce premiums for those with lower risk. It would make sense when filling in a life/medical insurance application to include relevant questions ... do you smoke? are you overweight? do you or anyone in your home own a gun?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I wouldn't be surprised if the Second Amendment forbids insurance companies asking such questions, less they be seen to be abridging constitutional rights.
Then again, I'm not an insurance agent, an American, still less a Supreme Court Judge. After Brexit and Trump nothing surprises me any more.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
A moment's googling would give you the answer.
Which is yes, if you have expensive guns you want to insure.
And no, if you just like to have an uninsured arsenal at home.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A moment's googling would give you the answer.
Which is yes, if you have expensive guns you want to insure.
And no, if you just like to have an uninsured arsenal at home.
They weren't talking about homeowner's insurance, where the only liability for the insurer would be the relatively little cost of the gun itself. They were talking about medical or life insurance, where there could be a much bigger payout if gun violence led to the untimely death or serious injury of the insured. An interesting concept.
The 2nd amendment wouldn't spell that out any prohibition directly, of course, since it predates such policies. If there's any prohibition it would have to come from later court interpretations. I'm not aware of any. Have never been asked about gun ownership when applying for either health or life insurance-- an interesting twist.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, I was thinking life/health insurance, not building or contents insurance.
I'm not aware of any statistics to indicate that possession of a gun results in a change in the chance of your home being robbed (I doubt it, though if it's suspected you have a gun then any robbers are more likely to carry guns themselves), much less any effect on the chances of accidental damage to your property.
On the other hand, there is a very strong correlation between owning a gun and either yourself or a member of your family getting shot, which will result in the insurance company paying out for either medical treatment or on a life policy (or, even both).
I'm not sure there would be a Second Amendement consideration. Increased insurance becomes just part of the cost of owning a gun - I've not heard anyone claim that their constitutional rights have been infringed because it's too expensive to buy a gun and ammunition, so would the additional cost of higher insurance rates be fundamentally different?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Have never been asked about gun ownership when applying for either health or life insurance-- an interesting twist.
Here's a question, what would happen if you you volunteered the information that there are no guns in your house, and therefore the chance of being shot are lower than for the average American since the average includes those who engage in the risky activity of owning a gun, could you ask the insurance company for a reduced premium? And, if your current insurer doesn't bite phone around and find one that does - then tell all your friends that such-and-such a company will provide cheaper insurance for non-gun owners. How long before simple market forces pushes all insurers to follow suit?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
So, Alan, what part of NRA do yo0u not understand?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The all-powerful NRA. The have the political classes in their pocket, and the media too. Have they taken on market forces? Have they done anything to force gun manufactures to sell below production costs so that even those on minimum wage struggling to put food on the table can exercise their God-given Constitutional right to own enough assault weapons to equip a small army or mow down dozens of concert goers? Would they be effective against big insurance companies when they realise people who own guns make more, bigger, claims and adjusting their premiums accordingly to make more money (while saving those who don't do risky things like own guns money)?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
They will pressure Congress* to legislate against raising costs on gun owners. And America will support them. Same dumb fucks that elected the Cheeto.
*Polite for Tell them what to do
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Even if it's not an increased cost to gun owners, but a discount to non-gun owners?
It's not as though there's no precedent in insurance industry. If you take out travel insurance you pay more if you intend to go skiing or doing something else dangerous on your vacation. Which, AFAIK, a result of nothing more than the free market balancing keeping the cost of insurance for the many as low as possible while giving options to allow those wanting more risk to still be insured.
Isn't there a general desire in the US to keep the costs of insurance as low as possible? Isn't that a political issue that the gun lobby is pushing against by advocating for activities that increase the costs on the insurance industry, costs that get passed onto everyone unless there is a relative discount for those who do not participate and benefit from that activity?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I am simply telling you how I think that suggestion will play out.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, they would walk straight into a "the NRA want to deny us cheaper insurance" situation. Which I think will be an interesting development. If any of the insurance companies are willing to play, which is going to need enough people to want it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
You have to remember that more people want some kind of stricter gun control than don't.
Still not going to happen.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
If the NRA prevents insurance companies from raising insurance rates on gun owners (which is a totally plausible possibility), then there is no economic mechanism to expect insurance companies to lower rates for non-gun owners. It's not like they're voluntarily going to charge less money on net premiums.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
They have been able to completely quash research on gun violence. Does owning a gun make your children more likely to die? Who knows? The NRA's tentacles are everywhere.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Do a search on "does owning a gun make your children more likely to die". The answer is not just kids and yes.
Need some drive-by knifings maybe?
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, they would walk straight into a "the NRA want to deny us cheaper insurance" situation.
No. It will be spun to be about Freedom. And enough dumb fucks will buy into this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do a search on "does owning a gun make your children more likely to die". The answer is not just kids and yes.
But you see, as Siegfried Sassoon says, it doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t matter how many children of gun owners are killed or injured in gun accidents.
It doesn’t matter about individuals stockpiling ammo and weapons in the comfort of their homes.
It doesn’t matter about private owners adapting weapons to increase their lethality.
It doesn’t matter about the year on year death toll from gun shot.
The USA continues to be to the most powerful, the most successful Nation in the entire World. Comparable to Britain at time of Sassoon's famous poem strangely enough.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It's not like they're voluntarily going to charge less money on net premiums.
Except, they will. They do it on other types of policy - if you can show you're a safer than average driver you get lower premiums, likewise a less powerful engine, fitting a device to monitor your driving etc. Because they know they won't have to pay out so much and so often on people who don't engage in risky behaviour, and they can make more money by charging less for lower risk people and, as a result, increasing their customer base. People want the cheapest insurance cover they can get, so any insurance company that can cut their premiums while still making a profit will edge ahead of their competitors.
So, it does surprise me that US insurance companies have not taken those steps to cut their premiums by charging larger premiums to gun owners (or, alternatively, excluding injuries/death resulting from guns owned by the insured party or others in their household from their cover).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Alan, it is t that we do not get what you are saying. It isn’t that we do not see the reason and logic of your proposal. It is that this issue does run on reason or logic. It runs on greed and delusion. Guess which is more powerful.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
But you see, as Siegfried Sassoon says, it doesn’t matter.
Ahem - Sassoon asks Does it Matter? and the tone was definitely cynical. I suspect the last verse (not that this version is split into three verses, as it is in most other places) is autobiographical.
(Taught this one as part of World War 1 poetry for a few years)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Indeed, CK. My mistake.
Came to me after I posted. Decided it didn't matter.
I had meant the the full cynicism of Sassoon's poem to come through on to what most outside observers can see as a thoroughly ridiculous state of affairs.
But as trumpites say, 'this is not the time to talk about it'
It amazes me that a human like Sassoon could access such a depth of cynicism, have something amounting to a breakdown and then go on to serve with bravery and distinction.
There are many brave people in America, those who dont carry guns.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, they would walk straight into a "the NRA want to deny us cheaper insurance" situation.
No. It will be spun to be about Freedom. And enough dumb fucks will buy into this.
It would be wrong for insurance companies to penalize people financially for exercising their constitutional rights. Or some shit like that.
And there's a big overlap with the people denying women birth control and abortion - also constitutional rights. You never hear them talk about freedom then.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And there's a big overlap with the people denying women birth control and abortion - also constitutional rights. You never hear them talk about freedom then.
Oh, holy hell. Refusing to require employers with objections to birth control to pay for it is denying women birth control now? (And how dare you assume that all women need birth control or that women are the only people who need it!)
And when did birth control and abortion become constitutional rights? Can you point me to that part of the Constitution?
Guns don't cause that many deaths relative to other things some people think they need that also cause deaths. I know some of y'all think the deaths are completely unnecessary because you think guns are completely unnecessary, but obviously not everyone agrees with you.
I generally hate the NRA and have for years, but I'm still in the 'you'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands' camp.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: in the US the right (generally) tends to treat guns the same way the left (generally) tends to treat abortion. Any restriction, no matter how sensible, is treated as the first step down the slippery slope towards a total ban (and this goes doubley so for any restriction that seems to have nothing to do with the problem people claim the restriction will help).
And there are a lot of people in this country who refuse to tell the government whether or not they keep guns unless required to so by law (and even then, some of them won't). Good luck getting people to voluntarily tell insurance companies that info, particularly if they know it will increase their rates.
But other than the fact that it would never work in a million years, good plan.
(It's not just the Ship, but the last few months have gotten me about ready to give up on 2020 as a lost cause for Dems).
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And when did birth control and abortion become constitutional rights? Can you point me to that part of the Constitution?
Can't speak about birth control but abortion became a constitutional right in 1972. Which part of the Constitution? Maybe you should go read the ruling.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And there are a lot of people in this country who refuse to tell the government whether or not they keep guns unless required to so by law (and even then, some of them won't). Good luck getting people to voluntarily tell insurance companies that info, particularly if they know it will increase their rates.
Insurance companies already know that people refuse to tell them pertinent facts. They simply put in clauses to the contracts that result, in the event of it becoming known that you submitted false information, in the voiding of the insurance. Which will then get reflected in the availability and cost of getting insurance in the future. Not to mention that there won't be a pay-out on insurance when your toddler gets hold of the gun you didn't tell the insurance company you had, or you mistake your daughter coming home late at night as an intruder.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
(And how dare you assume that all women need birth control or that women are the only people who need it!)
Where did anyone assume that all women need birth control? And even if someone did assume this, what's outrageous about such an assumption?
A substantial majority of heterosexual women become sexually active at some point. Even women who, by preference, partner sexually with other women might want recourse to birth control if they've been coerced into heterosexual activity (and current news suggests that such coercion may be frighteningly common).
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Plenty of women use birth control pills not for birth control but for other medical conditions.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Refusing to require employers with objections to birth control to pay for it is denying women birth control now?
They're not paying for birth control. They're paying health insurance premiums, and birth control is covered by health insurance. Or should be. For many women, if they don't have health insurance, they don't have access to reliable birth control, because without health insurance they can't see a doctor to get a decision about what birth control is appropriate for them and a prescription for that device or medication. Moreover, if employers are allowed to pick and choose what health insurance covers based on their own whack-job beliefs, we're opening the door to all sorts of abuses. Employers could think mental health issues are just demons that need casting out and refuse to pay for insurance that covers psychiatric care.
quote:
And when did birth control and abortion become constitutional rights? Can you point me to that part of the Constitution?
First, a little lesson: Constitutional rights are not just the things spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, such as freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Constitutional rights are also all the things that the US Supreme Court decides are constitutional rights based on their interpretation of the Constitution.
Birth control was ruled a constitutional right for married couples in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut as a right of privacy and for unmarried people in 1972 under the equal protection clause. Abortion was ruled a constitutional right in 1973 - a little thing called Roe v. Wade, you might have heard of it - as a right of privacy.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can't speak about birth control but abortion became a constitutional right in 1972. Which part of the Constitution? Maybe you should go read the ruling.
Hmmm. So I'm assuming you're talking about Roe v. Wade here (which was decided in 1973, not 1972, but whatever).
IIRC abortion was found to be a right protected under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the courts have held includes the right to privacy. I don't know whether or not you've ever made the argument that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to bear arms (much less whatever arms they choose to bear), but this interpretation is even more of a stretch. Furthermore, the interpretation is under dispute, hence the worry that Roe v. Wade will be overturned (although, even if it is overturned, abortion law will simply revert to the states). Either way, it's a stretch to describe abortion as a Constitutional right.
By the way, I have read Roe v. Wade. The fact that you instructed me to read a Supreme Court decision (assuming that's what you were talking about, as it seems that you are both being vague and getting your facts wrong, although it's possible that I'm simply not catching the right reference) rather than the Constitution somewhat undermines your argument. Yes, I understand that the Constitution is subject to interpretation, and the current interpretation is largely based on precedents set by the Supreme Court in various decisions. However, it remains the case that the Supreme Court can't actually change the Constitution. But I'm sure the condescending attitude will help you win friends and influence people!
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Where did anyone assume that all women need birth control? And even if someone did assume this, what's outrageous about such an assumption?
Because you're excluding Trans people! Hate speech!!! (I intended that as a bit of a tongue-in cheek aside based on some of the assumptions and tangents I've seen elsewhere, but obviously that didn't work).
But this thread isn't about abortion or birth control, it's about guns. I was merely trying to point out that disingenuous arguments and false equivalencies are unlikely to help build anyone's case.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
My last post x-posted with this one by RuthW.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Refusing to require employers with objections to birth control to pay for it is denying women birth control now?
They're not paying for birth control. They're paying health insurance premiums, and birth control is covered by health insurance. Or should be. For many women, if they don't have health insurance, they don't have access to reliable birth control, because without health insurance they can't see a doctor to get a decision about what birth control is appropriate for them and a prescription for that device or medication. Moreover, if employers are allowed to pick and choose what health insurance covers based on their own whack-job beliefs, we're opening the door to all sorts of abuses. Employers could think mental health issues are just demons that need casting out and refuse to pay for insurance that covers psychiatric care.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but that's not what was said. What was said was:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And there's a big overlap with the people denying women birth control and abortion - also constitutional rights. You never hear them talk about freedom then.
Who is trying to deny women birth control? There's a slightly stronger case for people attempting to deny women access to abortion, but since the majority of the country does not support making abortion illegal, I doubt a federal prohibition on abortion would ever make it through Congress, which would be required to create any sort of federal law.
I'd also like someone to reconcile the the general demand that the federal government continue to fund Planned Parenthood with the demand that the federal government continue to both require and subsidize health insurance that covers birth control, but that's more of an open request, and probably not appropriate to this thread.
quote:
quote:
And when did birth control and abortion become constitutional rights? Can you point me to that part of the Constitution?
First, a little lesson: Constitutional rights are not just the things spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, such as freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Constitutional rights are also all the things that the US Supreme Court decides are constitutional rights based on their interpretation of the Constitution.
Birth control was ruled a constitutional right for married couples in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut as a right of privacy and for unmarried people in 1972 under the equal protection clause. Abortion was ruled a constitutional right in 1973 - a little thing called Roe v. Wade, you might have heard of it - as a right of privacy.
Good, then we're agreed that there's a Constitutional right protecting an individual's right to bear arms, as that is what has been decided by the Supreme Court (most recently, I believe, in DC v. Heller in 2008)?
So why the hell would anyone bring up abortion and birth control (as if they were things that people were trying to deny Americans) with reference to the freedom to own guns?
Anyway. Give me a few minutes to try to get back to the subject of the thread and Alan's post...
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And there are a lot of people in this country who refuse to tell the government whether or not they keep guns unless required to so by law (and even then, some of them won't). Good luck getting people to voluntarily tell insurance companies that info, particularly if they know it will increase their rates.
Insurance companies already know that people refuse to tell them pertinent facts. They simply put in clauses to the contracts that result, in the event of it becoming known that you submitted false information, in the voiding of the insurance. Which will then get reflected in the availability and cost of getting insurance in the future. Not to mention that there won't be a pay-out on insurance when your toddler gets hold of the gun you didn't tell the insurance company you had, or you mistake your daughter coming home late at night as an intruder.
Where to start? Insurance in the US is already so expensive, with such high deductibles, that it's more-or-less useless to a lot of the people required to have it.
Before considering your proposal, I'd like to know how much (on average) health insurance companies pay out as a result of injuries sustained by a member of a household which contains a gun each year. What of people who are covered under insurance plans that are different from that of the gun owner? Are they excluded on the basis of the fact that they should have included that information on their health insurance application? What about people who are unrelated to the gun owner, did not know the person owned a gun when they moved in, and/or applied for health insurance before the household acquired a gun? Are they also excluded from treatment for gun related injuries (at least inasmuch as those treatments are not covered by insurance)? How are you going to investigate and prove that claims are the result of a legally acquired gun that should have been disclosed on the health insurance application rather than some other gun? Is the amount of money saved by the insurance company going to be worth the amount they will inevitably spend investigating the claims and possibly fighting them in court? Indeed, is the amount of money saved by insurance companies going to be worth the amount it will cost them to implement the policy and (in all likelihood) fight it in court? Are people without guns going to have to start having 'uninsured gunman' premiums added to their insurance the way they have 'uninsured motorist' premiums added to their car insurance? What's to stop insurance companies from temporarily reducing premiums to attract customers, and then, once everyone has adopted the lower non-gun premium, jacking the price back up like they do for everything else?
And those are just a couple of the questions that come to mind.
But my big question is this: what are you hoping to accomplish with this policy? Do you really think it will decrease gun injuries or deaths, much less gun ownership? Or is it simply a way to punish those who are making choices you disapprove of by denying them medical care, even if one of the reasons they own a gun in the first place is the fact that they need it in order to obtain food (which they can't pay for - so where are they going to get the money to pay more for insurance)?
You seem to view the ownership or use of a gun for personal protection as a bullshit excuse, but do you know that the courts have ruled numerous times that the police have no legal duty to protect members of the public? What of people who own a gun because they are in fact under some kind of demonstrable threat?
Why do you seem to want to deny food, basic self protection, and medical care to the vulnerable?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Here's a question that comes to my mind: why do you think this has anything to do with health insurance?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Who is trying to deny women birth control?
Repulsicans
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
You seem to view the ownership or use of a gun for personal protection as a bullshit excuse,
Because it is. More gun ownership means more gun deaths. Full fucking stop. Keeping a gun makes one much less safe.
(Top Tip: loosen the tinfoil hat just enough to allow some circulation)
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Here's a question that comes to my mind: why do you think this has anything to do with health insurance?
Uh, because Alan, the one who proposed this scheme, said it was about raising health and life insurance rates on people who own guns?
WTF?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Before considering your proposal, I'd like to know how much (on average) health insurance companies pay out as a result of injuries sustained by a member of a household which contains a gun each year.
A simple Google gives me annual costs of gunshot wounds of $126b. Which, of course, covers not just those where the gun was owned by a member of the same household. So, that is a maximum figure (it's also a decade old). How many of those deaths and injuries are the direct consequence of private gun ownership (accidental shootings at home, or shooting by someone responding to the presence of a gun)? If we assume 10% then that's still an annual cost of something like $100 per household.
quote:
Are people without guns going to have to start having 'uninsured gunman' premiums added to their insurance the way they have 'uninsured motorist' premiums added to their car insurance?
Clearly if someone gets shot by someone else's gun then they would still need to be covered. Someone can't be held responsible for someone else's decision to fire a gun in their vicinity - they can be held responsible if they choose to keep a dangerous object in their home or on their person.
quote:
What's to stop insurance companies from temporarily reducing premiums to attract customers, and then, once everyone has adopted the lower non-gun premium, jacking the price back up like they do for everything else?
The same as happens for introductory rates for utilities, bank accounts etc. Once the period covered by the introductory period ends then the customer can choose to take out a product with another provider giving the lower rates. If you want to keep customers you can't let competitors undercut you, that's how a market economy is supposed to work.
quote:
But my big question is this: what are you hoping to accomplish with this policy? Do you really think it will decrease gun injuries or deaths, much less gun ownership?
People who make the choice to own guns, on average, increase the costs to everyone of medical treatment by increasing the number of people needing treatment for gunshot wounds. If they choose to do that then it is only fair that they pay more towards those costs, which as they're largely borne by insurance companies would logically be collected by increased premiums. If those extra costs makes people think about whether or not to own a gun, with many people deciding not to bear that cost and so not own a gun that can only be a good thing.
quote:
You seem to view the ownership or use of a gun for personal protection as a bullshit excuse
You are correct. The stats are clear, you )or your loved ones) are far more likely to be killed or injured by a gun you own than from anyone who you might need protection from. Self-protection is not a valid reason to own a gun (that, anyway, is what has been the conclusion of the UK authorities for a century).
quote:
Why do you seem to want to deny food, basic self protection, and medical care to the vulnerable?
I'm doing no such thing. Remove the costs of a substantial proportion of gun shot wounds and there will be a reduction in insurance costs - making that more affordable, leaving more for food. Of course, ideally there should be affordable health care and a decent welfare system ... but that also doesn't seem likely in the current pseudo-barbarism of the US.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Who is trying to deny women birth control?
Repulsicans
Even if every damn health insurance company in the US refused to provide free birth control to every damn human being in the country, they would not be denying women birth control. You are, once again, demonstrating your dishonesty while not helping your case at all (actually, maybe that's not true, I don't know what your argument is other than that guns are bad and the NRA is bad).
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
You seem to view the ownership or use of a gun for personal protection as a bullshit excuse,
Because it is. More gun ownership means more gun deaths. Full fucking stop. Keeping a gun makes one much less safe.
(Top Tip: loosen the tinfoil hat just enough to allow some circulation)
You know, I lived in DC during the handgun ban. I had a guy who repeatedly came to my front door to masturbate. I called the cops any number of times. In addition to not having any legal obligation to protect citizens, I was told by a friend on the force that the DC police were, at the time, trying to improve their crime stats by simply not taking reports of crimes, particularly those that they thought were likely to remain open. I was advised by every damn cop and military person I know to buy a gun, because while I would be legally screwed if I ever had to use it (which seemed likely), being legally screwed is better than being dead.
So fuck you and your moronic world of rainbows and unicorns where nothing bad ever happens to anyone and if it does you get to be the one who decides who it happens to. Go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'lah, lah, lah, I can't hear you.' The only thing you're doing is driving people away from anything you advocate for (which doesn't seem to be much, mostly you seem to be against everything).
I'm sorry, what was your proposal for reducing the amount of gun violence in the US? At least Alan Cresswell is trying and not just bitching and whining.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Even if every damn health insurance company in the US refused to provide free birth control to every damn human being in the country, they would not be denying women birth control.
Alright. In their desire to end birth control, they are attempting to make it difficult for as many women as they can. Starting with the poor.
Happy now?
I genuinely feel for your experience. But it is irrelevant. Individual cases make bad laws and do not prove a point. More guns equals less safe citizens. It is a fact.
quote:
I'm sorry, what was your proposal for reducing the amount of gun violence in the US? At least Alan Cresswell is trying and not just bitching and whining.
Alan made a commendable effort, but one that will not work.
What will change things? I don't know. The first is trying to make congress represent the people rather than the NRA.
Education should be the second, but people are very resistant to that.
Rainbows and unicorns? You know me so well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I was told by a friend on the force
All this tells me is that your cop 'friend' wasn't a friend enough to turn out and put the frighteners on someone who was probably mentally ill.
And that you were prepared to kill someone who was probably mentally ill.
Pretty certain you just shot the high horse you rode in on.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I had a guy who repeatedly came to my front door to masturbate.
A dog trained to snap at (but not actually bite) his you-know-what might have been useful.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Saysay, perched on top of their horse, would win limbo contests.
The weasels are asking for their words back.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Who is trying to deny women birth control?
Asked and answered:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
For many women, if they don't have health insurance, they don't have access to reliable birth control, because without health insurance they can't see a doctor to get a decision about what birth control is appropriate for them and a prescription for that device or medication.
quote:
saysay, showing that what she cares about is her right to kill people:
Good, then we're agreed that there's a Constitutional right protecting an individual's right to bear arms, as that is what has been decided by the Supreme Court (most recently, I believe, in DC v. Heller in 2008)?
Heller was a stupid decision. And the second amendment should be repealed.
[ 31. October 2017, 01:23: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Well then Alan was barking up the wrong tree. It should be homeowner's insurance that jacks up your rates for having a gun. Because if someone is injured on your property, it's your homeowner's insurance that will be liable for damages.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Even if every damn health insurance company in the US refused to provide free birth control to every damn human being in the country, they would not be denying women birth control.
Alright. In their desire to end birth control, they are attempting to make it difficult for as many women as they can. Starting with the poor.
Happy now?
No.
Who desires to end birth control? And what is your evidence of this? (hint: not wanting the feds involved is not evidence of a desire to "end" birth control). How are "they" attempting to make it difficult for as many women as they can? Most health insurance companies and workplaces would probably require women to be on birth control and/or sterilized if they could do so since it cuts pregnancy costs (both to the insurance company and to all places of business) so much.
Besides, the poor's birth control is covered under Medicaid (provided by the government).
quote:
I genuinely feel for your experience. But it is irrelevant. Individual cases make bad laws and do not prove a point. More guns equals less safe citizens. It is a fact.
It's a fact that more guns equal less safe citizens? Define "safe," because I'm guessing you're trying to use the correlation between a high rate of gun ownership and a high rate of gun violence to imply that this equates to more "safety." What else are you willing to ban in the name of "safety"? (hey, here's an idea taken from the Trump playbook, what about banning immigrants from Muslim countries and Mexico? To be clear, it's not that I support that, but it's same type of argument).
And nobody I know lives according to statistics. You haven't provided a single reason why anyone should be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of a bunch of people who have made it clear that they would just as soon see them all dead.
Try again. Come up with some law that would actually work to reduce violence in the US. No, really.
quote:
quote:
I'm sorry, what was your proposal for reducing the amount of gun violence in the US? At least Alan Cresswell is trying and not just bitching and whining.
Alan made a commendable effort, but one that will not work.
What will change things? I don't know. The first is trying to make congress represent the people rather than the NRA.
I agree that Congress doesn't necessarily represent the people, but I tend to think that's mostly because power tends to represent itself. But what the hell is your obsession with the NRA? Why exactly do you think they have so much power? Why do you think Congress represents the NRA rather than the people? They don't contribute much money to Congress, particularly relative to other industries. And most people may want more gun control, but that's not an actual bill. Pretty much all of the gun control measures proposed in the wake of Las Vegas wouldn't have done shit to prevent it.
quote:
Education should be the second, but people are very resistant to that.
What kind of education? I'm assuming you're not talking about gun safety, such as that provided by the NRA. So just what the hell are you talking about?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Clearly if someone gets shot by someone else's gun then they would still need to be covered. Someone can't be held responsible for someone else's decision to fire a gun in their vicinity - they can be held responsible if they choose to keep a dangerous object in their home or on their person.
Well, not really. If Alice shoots Bob, then Charlie can't in any sense be held responsible because he owns a gun (unless Alice shot Bob with Charlie's gun, of course).
So what you come down to now is how insurers choose to raise the money to pay for gunshot injuries caused by unknown or uninsured shooters. And that's a purely commercial choice on the part of the insurance company.
It suits your sense of justice to allocate that cost to gun owners, but there's no reason that the insurer has to make the same choice.
Car drivers buy "uninsured motorist" cover because they might be crashed into by an uninsured motorist. The cost of this coverage scales with the value of your particular car, and with the mileage and kind of driving you do, and it is paid by the victim of the uninsured motorist. Even though we can't hold someone responsible for someone else's decision to crash a car into them.
They're not paying a premium because they're a car owner and are sharing in the responsibilities of other owners of cars - they're paying a premium because their valuable (or less valuable) property is at risk of being damaged by strangers.
So the natural place for an insurer to put "uninsured gunman" coverage is on the premium of the potential victim. If you live in a place with lots of shootings, expect to pay a high price.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I was told by a friend on the force
All this tells me is that your cop 'friend' wasn't a friend enough to turn out and put the frighteners on someone who was probably mentally ill.
This makes no sense. Even if he had been working that shift (which, for the most part, he wasn't), his getting fired for disobeying orders might have helped me temporarily, but how would it have helped anyone in the long run? And what do you suppose he would have used to put the "frighteners" on someone?
quote:
And that you were prepared to kill someone who was probably mentally ill.
Interesting assumption. Do you know how many potential crimes have been stopped because one person has a gun but doesn't fire it at all, much less kill anyone? Of course not, because the data isn't available. And even if it were, most anti-gun people would discount it, because it's impossible to know if the gun actually prevented a crime because the crime didn't happen.
quote:
Pretty certain you just shot the high horse you rode in on.
I'm the one on a high horse on this thread? Yeah, sure, uh-huh.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Define "safe," because I'm guessing you're trying to use the correlation between a high rate of gun ownership and a high rate of gun violence to imply that this equates to more "safety." What else are you willing to ban in the name of "safety"? (hey, here's an idea taken from the Trump playbook, what about banning immigrants from Muslim countries and Mexico?
The argument in the Trump playbook is factually incorrect. Immigrants do not commit more crimes than average. Whether or not there is any kind of justice in his idea (and you can probably guess my opinion on that), his numbers just don't add up. If you want "safety", you should kick Americans out...
The statistics on gun ownership are also clear - people who own guns are more likely to be the victims of gun violence than people who don't. Children in gun-owning households are more likely to be shot than those in households without guns. And so on.
It's perfectly reasonable for individual people to think "I'm not like that." They might be right. It is perfectly possible for a particular individual to be safer with a gun than without one. But if all such individuals think that, then the statistics conclusively prove that a majority of them are wrong.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Who is trying to deny women birth control?
Asked and answered:
You're playing word games and attempting to define "deny" the way you would like it defined, not the way it is commonly understood. Is anyone denying people guns by not paying for them?
quote:
saysay, showing that what she cares about is her right to kill people:
Because wanting the right to defend yourself using any means necessary is the same as wanting the right to kill people?
OK.
quote:
Heller was a stupid decision. And the second amendment should be repealed.
Well, at least you're honest. Good luck getting the second amendment repealed.
And even if you did successfully do that, what do you plan to do about all the guns that are already on the ground?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we assume 10% then that's still an annual cost of something like $100 per household.
That's actually not too bad compared to what most people are paying for insurance anyway. In fact, it's possible most gun owners would actually pay it (or more) just to avoid the risk of having to cover the medical bills should there be an accident. You'd still have to fight people's reluctance to let companies have the information that they are in fact gun owners, but it's possible. But I do imagine there would probably be a court challenge based on the same privacy protections that supposedly give women the constitutional right to abortion.
Though while we're at it, can we also raise rates on the obese, to pay for the $207 billion in annual health care costs they incur? Given the way the thread is going, I won't even suggest dramatically hiking the premiums of women who might get pregnant because of the associated health care costs, even though our rates were astronomical before the ACA.
quote:
If you want to keep customers you can't let competitors undercut you, that's how a market economy is supposed to work.
In the US, neither health care nor health care insurance operate in a free market economy.
quote:
Remove the costs of a substantial proportion of gun shot wounds and there will be a reduction in insurance costs - making that more affordable, leaving more for food. Of course, ideally there should be affordable health care and a decent welfare system ... but that also doesn't seem likely in the current pseudo-barbarism of the US.
Well, no. If you're asking people to pay substantially more in order to own the gun they use to get food, they will not have more money for food. You'd have to lower health insurance rates a lot (probably by more than the amount that would be saved simply by eliminating gunshot related expenses) in order to make up for the amount that many people would have to spend on food if they had to give up their guns.
Your second sentence I agree with.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The argument in the Trump playbook is factually incorrect. Immigrants do not commit more crimes than average. Whether or not there is any kind of justice in his idea (and you can probably guess my opinion on that), his numbers just don't add up. If you want "safety", you should kick Americans out...
The statistics on gun ownership are also clear - people who own guns are more likely to be the victims of gun violence than people who don't. Children in gun-owning households are more likely to be shot than those in households without guns. And so on.
This is precisely why I was asking for a definition of "safe". Safe from crime? Safe from gun violence? Safe from accidents, cultural shift, minorities, the government? Are you (general) basing your definition of "safe" purely around whether or not someone is going to be physically injured or killed? If so, why? Is it legitimate for anyone to base their definition of safety around something else? If so, what and why (what makes that legitimate to your mind)?
There are far more accidental deaths caused by cars than there are by firearms. There are far more accidental injuries and deaths from car accidents among people who own cars than among people who don't. Children who live in car-owning households are more likely to be killed by a car than those who don't. And so on.
quote:
It's perfectly reasonable for individual people to think "I'm not like that." They might be right. It is perfectly possible for a particular individual to be safer with a gun than without one. But if all such individuals think that, then the statistics conclusively prove that a majority of them are wrong.
Assuming your definition of safety is based around a decreased risk of death or physical injury (as it seems to be), how do you go about convincing people who have evidence to the contrary that they should view themselves as part of a statistical whole rather than as individuals? What argument does anyone arguing against gun ownership have that any individual should sacrifice their own well-being (to the point of risking their death) for the good of the group (in which people are statistically less likely to die)? And how would you convince those who do not define their safety according to their chances of physical injury or death that they should do so?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
